Dr Clare Craig Profile picture
Oct 5, 2024 18 tweets 5 min read Read on X
The latest Pfizer safety report shows a massive cardiovascular signal

and also shows some very odd data.

Let's start with the first. 🧵
NHR and PHARMO are different European databases.

The total number of cardiovascular events of any type works out at a risk of

1 in 264 for NHR
and
1 in 362 for PHARMO Image
By contrast the claimed risk of severe covid was reduced by

1 in 2403 for NHR
and
1 in 5181 for PHARMO Image
Pfizer admit there is a signal in the PHARMO database but they have a plan to make it disappear...

"it could be possible to model some constructive bias analysis to correct this in the final analysis."Image
If you had a new set of aircraft and there was a report of a problem from one country - would you ignore it because the others had not reported a problem?

Would you fudge the data from the concerning country by modelling it to look like the other countries?
There are differences between these datasets.

People in the PHARMO dataset were healthier - they had a far lower incidence of death, for example.

Signals are easier to see in healthier datasets because they are less likely to be lost in the background noise. Image
You may wonder why the deaths are higher in the unvaccinated.

The well recognised healthy vaccinee effect means that those who are about to die reject the vaccine and end up inflating the mortality of the unvaccinated.
However, Pfizer did not do analysis having excluded this period.

They also did no analysis by age group except for myocarditis.

Because of low background rates in younger age groups signals would be more obvious if these were analysed separately.
One way to reduce the risk of this bias would be to only look at people who were sick in the week before vaccination or matching (if unvaccinated).

This was the plan (although maybe they meant it as an exclusion criteria?): Image
Until the EMA stopped it.

They did not ask for analysis only of those who had contact with health care system prior to injection or matching! Image
Now for the odd data.

Given the healthy vaccinee effect, the unvaccinated should have higher rates of any condition in the first 60 days.

But they do not. Image
What is more odd is that the number of people is huge at the beginning but rapidly reduces.

This is because the unvaccinated are matched to the vaccinated. When they get vaccinated that pairing is dropped.

That should mean huge numbers of events in the first 60 days. e.g. Image
Independent evidence is consistent in showing a higher rate of covid in the first two weeks.

Pfizer claims the opposite (except for PHARMO)! Image
Despite the clear issues there are still really concerning signals like this one:

They weren't even looking at myocarditis / pericarditis until asked to in December 2021! Image
Independent scientists need to be doing this work not companies with a vested interest.

But governments have made the data available only to the latter!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr Clare Craig

Dr Clare Craig Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ClareCraigPath

Jun 30
It really is in everywhere.

Here are some foods you might think could be freely eaten if you are avoiding foritfied flour.

But they all have folic acid in them.🧵

Duchy "organic" sausages: Image
Chicken Teriyaki rice bowl Image
Quorn Image
Read 16 tweets
Jun 23
The worst case of pandemic death inflation was 1918.

Wellcome Trust claim 100 million people died from Spanish Flu.

That is an impossible number.

Here is why. 🧵 Image
Let's start with some numbers that people agree with.

There were 1.8 billion people on the planet.

A third were infected.

That is ~600 million infections. Image
That gives us the problem in a nutshell.

The Wellcome Trust are claiming 1 in 6 people infected died.

That is 17%.

The evidence suggests that is out by at least ten fold.
Read 17 tweets
Feb 5
I dug into this a bit further by age and sex.

What I found was quite surprising... 🧵
First male mortality:

Service aged men under 40 died more in the war years - but nothing like as much as in 1918.

Their sons also died in 1918.

Note, it seems not all war related deaths are included in this data. Image
Same graph.

Those too old to serve did not.

1920 saw deficit after all the dying. Image
Read 8 tweets
Jan 23
We now have death data for England for 2025.

What does it show?

2024 and 2025 has seen total mortality at about the same level as ONS predicted back in 2018 (already taking into account ageing and growing population).

Let's look in more detail
🧵 Image
Over 85 year old rate (based on ONS pop estimates) have returned to their 2016-2019 trendline.

Despite massive excess there was never the expected deficit.

The ONS predicted far too many deaths in 2024 and undercorrected for 2025 (green line). Image
The picture is similar for 75-84 year olds with far too many ONS predicted deaths in 2024 and an small correction for 2025. Image
Read 13 tweets
Nov 10, 2025
Four years on, we’re still being told “the virus was riskier than the vaccine.”

This is ALL WRONG.

The vaccine did not stop infections.

Vaccinated children were exposed to both risks - sometimes multiplied by several doses.

Breakdown of that paper:
🧵
dailymail.co.uk/health/article…
It is wrong to focus on only one adverse event to the exclusion of others.
+
Mild or asymptomatic myocarditis has been demonstrated post vaccine.

3% of teenage boys had evidence of dead heart cells (raised troponin) a third had symptoms after booster.

hartgroup.org/myocarditis-be…
Those are all massive caveats to looking at this data at all but when we do we see a whole heap of problems...
Read 20 tweets
Aug 27, 2025
🚨USA - your babies are dying.

This is a professional deep dive into the official data.

It explains the alarming numbers of deaths of under 1 year olds.

It’s time the authorities took notice and they won’t unless you make them.

These babies did NOT need to die 🚨
The green dots show the annual mortality rate for babies under 1 year old in USA each year.

These are too high in the last three years ('21-'23).

People draw different baselines to claim these deaths can be ignored but I will show you why they cannot be. Image
Data from '24 and '25 are incomplete but we can take a closer look at when the deaths increased.

Here are deaths in US baby girls.

Nothing happens from March '20 to March '21. From April '21 the babies start dying.

There is a winter reprieve in '21-'22 then it returns. Image
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(